Steve Vivian’s article has effected a change in my vocabulary. Henceforth the liberals who, although repeatedly mugged by reality, refuse to become conservative, will be called “squishies.”

The symposium in frontpagemag inadvertently shows that most of those well-informed people discussing the dreadful situation in France are as squishy as ever. The giveaway is that nobody challenged the parallel between the Jews and the Muslims. The symposiasts talked as though these were simply two immigrant groups, the differences between which are due to the different generations in which they arrived in France. The discussants are still scared of looking Islam in the face.

French Jews were not proselytizers; they did not aim to convert all of France—and tomorrow the world—to Islam; their Scriptures did not say that non-Jews were destined to hell. The symposiasts’ squishiness on this difference is what makes the present horrifying situation in France a prophecy of what we here will encounter.

There were many strong comments by readers at the FrontPage symposium on the Death of France, indicating a high level of understanding of the immigration threat. I particularty liked this one, which (perhaps whimsically) connects France’s current weakness with the elimination of its ruling class in the French
Revolution:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/GoPostal/commentdetail.asp?ID=8268&commentID=105185

Also, I agree with Frieda’s observations about the symposium.

It is interesting that the same writer (Glazov) seems to have little concern about the fate of the United States (expressed openly in his naked criticism of Buchanan’s “Death of the West”).

“It is interesting that the same writer (Glazov) seems to have little concern about the fate of the United States (expressed openly in his naked criticism of Buchanan’s “Death of the West”).”

But that’s the significance of the article by Steve Vivian that I also linked. In the past, certain conservatives would see Muslim immigration as a problem for Europe, but not for the U.S. Now, for the first time, Horowitz at least is making the connection. And he further draws our attention to it by publishing the “Death of France?” symposium on the same day as the Vivian article about the threat of Muslims in the U.S.

It is helpful to traditionalists that Mr. Horowitz sees the danger Islam poses. It is unsurprising and predictable, but still frustrating, that most humans cannot see mortal threats such as multiculturalism (which includes multisexualism) until it openly and repeatedly threatens their identity. Mr. Horowitz’s identity as a Jew seems a highly probable cause for his conclusion about the threat of Islam. This identity must be very strong to override his principled (according to him) view about the threats some cultures pose to other cultures.

Perhaps, therefore, to the extent Mr. Horowitz retains a belief in some liberal ideas, a strong association with his Jewishness could very well cause him to hold to the ideas. That is, perhaps Mr. Horowitz clutches the liberal ideas because he believes (falsely) that the ideas and Jewishness are inseparable.

These comments might be useful in providing a clue as to how to persuade Mr. Horowitz to give up his liberalism. For example, in directing an argument to Mr. Horowitz, one could always say how the conclusion would benefit Jews.